Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH CHARDRA SAHU versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, E.P.F.ORGA. AND ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Chardra Sahu v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F.Orga. And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 3671 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4237 (13 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Petitioner was  appointed as class IV employee  on 23.7.1984 and she has completed  22 years of regular service  in the college namely  Kabool Girls Inter College, Mubarakpur Tigari ( Khatuli) district Muzaffar Nagar. She was placed under suspension  on 8.9.2004. However, her appeal  was allowed and she was reinstated  on the post of Sewika . She again joined the duty in the College   and getting her regular salary but her salary  of about   19 months  during the suspension period  has not been paid. In this regard  the Finance and Account  Officer  of the office of District Inspector of Schools  has also written a letter dated 21.4.2006 to the Manager/ Principal  of the College for sending the salary bill of the petitioner but the College  authorities  have not taken any action. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to non payment of salary of about 19 months the petitioner is facing financial hardship.  Hence the present writ petition.

I have heard Smt. Archana Singh,  learned counsel for the petitioner and  learned Standing Counsel   for the State respondents..

Considering the facts and  circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner may file a  fresh representation  for payment  of her  salary before respondent No.3 In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided  by respondent No.3  by  speaking order, after hearing petitioner and newly added respondent if possible, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with the representation. The respondent No.3after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt.24.1.2007

Rkb.3734/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.